Dismissed

M.Venkatesh Yadav v. G.Babu Rao

Telangana HC3 Jul 2023CRLRC/2025/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the High Court of Telangana reviewed an order of the Special Magistrate refusing to compare ink on a cheque under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The court dismissed the revision, holding the order interlocutory and the Magistrate's finding regarding visible ink differences sound.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

M.Venkatesh Yadav Vs G.Babu Rao — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

] I I I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:2025 0F 2018

¶7

criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of cr.p.c against the Proceedings made in crt.M.P.No.188s of 2017 in c.c.No.,l74 of 201s on the file of the court of the IV special Magistrate at Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Venkatesh Yadav S/o Late M.Babaiah R/o H.No. 17 -1 -3861 1 lsls S. N. Reddy Nagar, Champapet, Hyderabad, (T.S) ... PETITION ER/ACC US E D

¶10

AND

¶11

1 9;?.?,by-[r",^{Reqbytris G.P.A!K!1an Goud, S/o M.RamaKrishna, Aged} abo.ut 37 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No 3_91/3Kunfloor, Hayat Nagar," Hyderabad(T.S)

¶12

2 The State of Telangana, represented by public prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

l.A NO: 't OF 201 I

¶15

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings of the cc No 174 ol 2016 on fire of the rV speciar Magistrate at Hasthinapuram Ranga Reddy district.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. JAYAKAR RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : pUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

t I

¶20

I I i

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2O25 OF 2018

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed^under Section 45 of the Evidence Act^{videCrl.M.P.No.1885120L7} seeking to send Ex.P. 1/cheque for^{comparing, the writings} of the signature on Ex.^P. 1 r'r,ith that of othe:^{rvritings on} Ex.P. 1 to knou, u,hether the1. 21s one or different.^Further, to compare the ink used for the signature^on

¶24

Ex. P. 1 / ch eque.

¶25

Learned Magistrate found that it was visible to^the naked eye and one can see the difference^{of the ink used in} signing on Ex.P. 1/cheque and the ink used in filling^{up the} body of Ex.P. 1. Further, even if there^{was difl'erencein ink} used in signing the trx.P. 1/cheque and filling up^{the body,} it will not heip the accused in ary manner.^{For the said} reason, the prayer to send trx.P. 1/cheque^{was refused.}

¶26

The above said orcler passed is interlocutory in nature. Rer.ision cannot be maintained. Further, the reasons given by the lr:arned Magistrate also cannot be

¶27

¶28

found fault with. Learned Magistrate had stated that it is apparent to the naked eye that there is difference in ink used in signing the trx.P. l/cheque and the ink used for other writings on the cheque

¶29

There are no grounds to interfere with the order of learned Magistrate 1n refusing to sent Ex. P. 1 for comparison. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR C3 SECTI6N oFFIcER

¶34

To,

¶35

1 The lV special Magistrate at Hasthinapuram Ranga Reddy District. 2 One CC to Sri V.Jayakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 3 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana (OUT) 4 Two CD Copies kS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310712023

-i i1
c!".
(
4
()() 1$ [uB 2u8
t /.)FSPA
.+i--: -'"'

¶41

ORDER

¶42

CRL.R.C.N o.2025 of 201 8

¶43

Dismissing the CRL.R.C @*rq Bsddr:

M.Venkatesh Yadav v. G.Babu Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Venkatesh Yadav v. G.Babu Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Choppari Narsaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Gudupally Jagadeshwar, Venkatapur [v], Medak District. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Mohd Irhad , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Kasam Lingiah Vs the State of Telangana

Sirugumalle Prakash , Adla Prakash Vs the State of Telangana

Polkanti Eshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana